If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

When Bush began his first term in January 2001, total nonfarm employment was 132.47 million. When his second term began four years later, it was 132.45 million, or effectively zero job growth.

Obama's first term isn't technically over yet, but so far, employment has risen from 133.56 million in January 2009 to 134.02 million in the latest report, for December 2012. That's a net gain of about 460,000 or 0.3 percent. As paltry as that is, it beats Bush's first-term performance.

Purists might argue that because of the one-month lag in the official job numbers, it would be more appropriate to judge each president's first term from the February figures rather than those for January. But that gives Obama an even bigger edge. From February 2001 to February 2005, the economy created 164,000 jobs, for a 0.1 percent gain during Bush's first term. From February 2009 through December 2012, the economy created nearly 1.2 million jobs, a 0.9 percent improvement.

I think it's amazing that when Bush was in office, the unemployment rate went down to as low as 4.4% and the libs wailed and gnashed teeth on how high the rate was. Under Obama the rate went as high as 10% and the libs cheered as loudly as if the rate were 0.0. To people like Lainie, when the rate dropped to 8%, this meant that Obama was creating jobs. The logic is mind boggling.

I'm going to tell everyone I know that is off work or working for next to nothing because of the progressive depression that it is only their imaginations and that they are doing much better than they were doing 5 and 10 years ago.

The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.

1. The piece you cite is based on dodgy stats. From yesterday's Zero Hedge:

A surprisingly uneventful report, as BLS reports that 155,000 Jobs were added in December, right on top of the 156,000 expected, and in line with the number needed to keep up with the growth in the population, or at least the Old Normal growth. The unemployment rate was 7.8%, vs the 7.7% expected...The November unemployment rate was revised from 7.7% to 7.8%, just so headlines can proclaim the rate was unchanged, even though it was fractions away from a 7.9% print, compared to November initial 7.7%. According to the Household survey a materially less, or 28,000 jobs were added even as the number of unemployed rose by 164K. Average hourly earnings for all employees rose 0.3% in December from November, compared to the 0.2% expected. The confusion continues as the BLS reports retail jobs were mysteriously down by 19,000 even as every retailer announced it was hiring the kitchen sink, while manufacturing jobs supposedly rose by 25,000 while the ADP report reported 6 months of reductions in a row. Construction jobs increased by 30,000. The Underemployment rate, U-6, remains steady at 14.5%. ADP, which will certainly be revised lower now, remains a farce.

2. The plight of the long term unemployed is far worse than for those recently unemployed. The long term unemployed have less and less of a chance of being hired and many of these either are counted or will be counted as "discouraged workers", who are removed from the official numbers. NPR, hardly a conservative source, notes this:

The latest figures show December was another month of steady, moderate job growth. But for many people still struggling with long-term unemployment, the situation hasn't actually changed much at all.

For Alecia Warthen, the last eight months have been painfully stagnant.

She was the first person in her family to finish college, after growing up in one of the roughest sections of Brooklyn. She had earned an accounting degree and worked as a bookkeeper for most of the last decade.

Then she lost her job with the City of New York last April, and she's now telling local grocery stores she'll do anything for a job — mop floors, stock shelves, bag groceries.

One morning she stopped by a Foodtown grocery store in the Bronx. She put in an application a few weeks before, but hadn't heard back. The man she spoke with immediately shook his head at her inquiry.

"They just closed one of my other Foodtown stores, and we're absorbing their help right now. So I have nothing open," he said.

"This is sad. This is so sad." Warthen said as she made her way back through the doors. "I'm going back home. Enough."

Warthen says she's applied for more than 100 jobs since her layoff and has had only four interviews so far. She's tried making clothes and curtains to sell — until her sewing machine broke. She even peddled homemade body lotions and home-cooked meals. But nothing's helped...

...But...the main reason people are staying unemployed is a skill-set gap. Those growing sectors need skills many long-term unemployed people just don't have, especially those in their 40s and 50s.

Bonny Williams helps run New York Staffing Services, a job-placement center in Manhattan. He's found that the longer someone remains unemployed, the more that person will be perceived as someone without the right skills.

"It does look undesirable ... from an employer perspective," Williams says. "They'd rather spend the time with someone who's just coming off an assignment because they're looking as though they're job-ready, versus someone who may have been a bit stale being out of work for some time."

Williams says even though he is placing more workers these days, the people first in line to get the new jobs are the ones who've been out of work the shortest time.

That means prospects continue to look dim for people like Warthen. She has already started to pull money out of both her life insurance policy and retirement account. To save on electricity now, her house goes pitch black every night before 11 p.m.

So, basically, the government is playing with labor stats, and, for many workers, the chance of ever being gainfully employed again is minimal. Such is Obama's America.

When Bush began his first term in January 2001, total nonfarm employment was 132.47 million. When his second term began four years later, it was 132.45 million, or effectively zero job growth.

Obama's first term isn't technically over yet, but so far, employment has risen from 133.56 million in January 2009 to 134.02 million in the latest report, for December 2012. That's a net gain of about 460,000 or 0.3 percent. As paltry as that is, it beats Bush's first-term performance............

Looks good. Except that the population in 2000 was 282 million. Population now is 311 million.

That makes a huge difference. No one knows the exact number of people who want full time employment, but historically it has hovered around 47%.
47% of 311 million is 146 million, so that's how many jobs there need to be. We are 14 million jobs short.

It's true. Obama has created more jobs than Bush. He has hired federal employees at the rate of 101 per DAY! for the first 1420 days of his term. And that's a lousy way to establish growth.

lol. What color is the sky in your world. Unemployments still around 8-14% depending on the metrics you use. And you can't count all the federal jobs created because a government job produces nothing.

Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown

Liberals are stupid. They live by the U3 rate but ignore the U6 rate. Typical lying sheep they are.

We can all thank Bill Clinton for that. He helped start the shuck and jive with Unemployment numbers, which is why his numbers always looked so peachy.

Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown